And were not this most grosly to charge Paul with Transgression both of Law and Gospel Whereas in a Formal Oath as made amongst Men there is First Swearing by the Great God intended Secondly An Imprecation or Curse contained Thirdly Some Ceremony or Sign used besides the bare words of invocating or calling upon God or so help me God For that the same Invocation may as well be used without an Oath even in our praying for God's Help and Assistance The words So help me God or I call God to witness may be used without any Intent of Swearing as well as in an Oath in desiring his Help and simply as owning him for Witness to the Truth spoken in Christ which as such is not an Oath but when thus intended viz. So let me have or want the Help of God according as I speak the Truth or so let God be Witness or judge for or against me In this latter Sense is an Oath implying a Curse as Let God be Witness or Judge against me if I speak not the Truth but the bare words so God help me or God is my Witness or God knows I speak the Truth in Christ I Lye not cannot be a Swearing nor a Formal Oath without an Intention thereof or of an Imprecation or Execration implyed as of old some time an Oath of Cursing was used among the Jews and there are several Sorts of Oathes and several Wayes or Ceremonies expressing Formal Swearing as among the Heathen Laying the Hands upon the Altar and Swearing by the Gods Abraham's Servant putting his Hand under his Thigh the Angel Lifting up the Hand towards Heaven among the professed Christians a Laying the Hand upon a Bible and Kissing it or Swearing upon the four Evangelists according to the Pope's Imposition However we taking the last as the Magistrates general Sense of an Oath the Definition thereof is not so much the Matter in Controversie as the Lawfulness or Unlawfulness of Swearing among Christians His Instance that Jacob Swore by the Fear of his Father Isaac proves not that Laban's simply saying God is Witness makes up a formal Oath seeing he also said This Heap viz. of Stones is Witness between me and thee see Gen. 31. VVill any presume to say That he Swore by the Heap of Stones which was a Witness or a Memorial His accusing St. Paul notwithstanding Christ's prohibition that he did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath is both a gross Abuse of Paul and contradicts this man's confessing that he delivered the Truth with great Demonstration of the Spirit and of Power and that by Manifestation of the Truth he commended himself to every man's Conscience in the Sight of God 1 Cor. 2. 4 13. 2 Cor. 4. 2. Surely the Demonstration of the Spirit and Manifestation of the Truth was not Swearing to every man's Conscience for there was no need of Swearing where the Truth was so manifest among the Saints But to say that Paul did frequently confirm his Sayings with an Oath renders him both of very little Power Manifestation or Credit as a Minister of Christ among his Saints and Churches none of them excepted and them also to have as little Knowledge and Confidence of Paul and his Testimony Further He varies between saying God is Witness and mens calling him for a Record against their Soul where he brings Augustine for a Proof that Paul Swore in these words If so Augustine is not constant to himself nor with other Fathers particularly Basil. on Psal. 14. pag. 155. of his Works impr at Paris 1618. where he saith There are some Speeches which have the form of an Oath which are not Oathes but are Remedies for the Hearer as the Apostle to the Corinthians willing to shew his Love said Yea or by your Rejoycing c. for he was not disobedient to the Doctrine of the Gospel who was intrusted with the Gospel but he gave a small word in the Form of an Oath that their Rejoycing was most desirous to him he shewed by such a manner of Speech Thus far Basil though we know the Particle by is not alwayes a Note of Swearing In his second Argument he grants that Justice may be administred according to the Rule of the Gospel by the Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses Mat. 18. 16. but not of one without an Oath as taking in God to witness with him where there is but one Witness as in the Case instanced Exed 22. 10 11. However that Testimony of Two or Three Witnesses may decide a Controversie without an Oath and where there is but one faithful Witness God is Witness with him and for him therein and hath a Witness for him in men's Consciences And the Law-makers to whom we have applyed and not to such busie Opposers as this Agent against us have Power to make Provision for such a one as cannot for Conscience sake Swear that his Testimony may be taken instead of an Oath especially he being willing to undergo the same Penalty that is due to perjured Persons if he be found false in his Testimony as we have proposed however this Opposer takes little notice thereof And many in Authority have confessed our Proposition therein to be fair and sufficient and not at all tending to obstruct the Administration of Justice nor to patronize Injustice as is most falsly insinuated against us pag. 3. In his third Argument he asserts That the Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament Prophets did commend Swearing by God as that which was to be the practice of his Elect Servants in the Christian-Church after his Rejection of the Jews and chusing the Gentiles Answ. We deny this Assumption that they did so commend Swearing as a Practice to continue in the Christian-Church among Jews and Gentiles For Christ and his Apostles Prohibition of Swearing at all either by Heaven or Earth or any other Oath was of an Universal Extent to both Jews and Gentiles that come to be of the Christian-Church both forbidding such Swearing as the Jews of old time used under the Law viz. by the Lord and the Apostate Jews and Gentiles Swearing by Idols or the Creatures or any Oath whatsoever He attempts to prove his Assumption from Isa. 56. 15. And ye shall leave your Name for a Curse to my Chosen that is saith he the people that I shall chuse from among the Gentiles shall use your Name in Execration when they have a mind to denounce a Curse c. And this he brings to prove Swearing a Practice to continue amongst God's Elect Servants in the Christian-Church And so he would perswade them not only to Swear contrary to Christ's Command but to use Execrations and to denounce a Curse when they have a mind as he supposes which is contrary to Christ and his Apostles Doctrine who taught the Elect to Bless those that Curse them and to Bless and Curse not for to Bless God and Curse man ought not to be In his fourth
also presumes to tell us Here is nothing forbidden but what was forbidden in the Law when Swearing by the Lord was not only lawful but expresly commanded Deut. 6. 13. 10. 20. All which is answered by Christ himself where he recites what was said in old time in this Case of Swearing as namely It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thy Oathes But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. But let your Communication be Yea Yea Nay Nay c. Which makes it very plain that here was more forbidden by Christ then what was by the Law his words in this holding parallel with his very next words Ye have heard that it hath been saith An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth but I say unto you That ye resist not Evil but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right Cheek turn to him the other also vers 38 39. Did not Christ himself hereby forbid his Disciples that kind of severe Retaliation which was allowed under the Law as he allowed divers and other things in Condescension to the People's Weakness Deut. 24. 1. Matth. 5. 31 32. Luke 16. 18. And in this Case of God's allowing the Jews to swear under the Law where he said Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and serve him and shalt Swear by his Name Deut. 6. 13. This appears plainly to be a Condescension to their Weakness and an Obligation to prevent them from going after other Gods as is evident by the very next words Ye shall not go after other Gods of the Gods of the people that are round about you vers 14. This State was much below the Evangelical State of the true Christians who in the Love they bear to the Lord are engaged to speak the Truth in Yea and Nay without an Oath as Christ his Apostles have taught So the Difference lies here the Jews when bound by an Oath they feared the Oath or the Curse contained or implyed in it they Swearing by the Great God as chiefly to be feared them with regard to his Power to judge and avenge c. and this was for a time some tye upon them to prevent them from going after other Gods The True Christians are bound in their Consciences by the Royal and Evangelical Law of Love which was before Swearing was and takes away the Occasion of Oaths to serve God and speak the Truth every man to his Neighbour without Swearing So that the Disparity between the State under the Law and that under the Gospel lies here Under the Law Thou shalt fear the Lord and Swear by his Name Under the Gospel Thou shalt so Love the Lord as to speak the Truth and confirm it in Yea and Nay without being bound by an Oath Now judge serious Reader which of these do express more Love Respect and Honour to God whether he that 's bound by an Oath not to go after other Gods and to speak the Truth as fearing an Oath and the Curse which was the better use of Oaths which now few that use them regard or he that is bound in Conscience to speak and do Truth without an Oath whose word Yea and Nay is more binding to him and of more Value and Credit then men's Swearing Imprecations and Curses And likewise between man and man and Neighbours which do express most Love one to another and Confidence in each other they that will not believe one another without Oathes and Curses or they that will like Christians speak the Truth and believe one another's plain and simple Yea Yea and Nay Nay as Christ and his Apostle has commanded Such are the true Christians and People of God as are come to the fulfilling of the Evangelical Prophesie Surely they are my People Children that will not Lye and so was he their Saviour Isa. 63. 8. And the Remnant of Israel shall not speak Lyes neither shall a Deceitful Tongue be found in their Mouth But to return to Christ and his Apostles express Prohibition But I say unto you Swear not at all neither by Heaven c. nor by ANY OTHER Oath Hereby Christians are so plainly forbidden Swearing in any Case as Christ forbids an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth or hating thine Enemy see Mat. 5. 39 44. Or else what Coherence is there in his Words and what Difference is there between the Dispensation of the Law and that of the Gospel if as this man sayes Christ here forbids nothing but what was forbid in the Law By which he renders Christ as thus speaking It hath been said by them of old time Thou shalt not Forswear thy self but shalt perform to the Lord thine Oaths And I say the same Instead of But I say unto you Swear not at all And likewsie ye have heard that it hath been said An Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth And I say the same to you instead of But I say unto you Resist not Evil c. And so this would make Christ still leave his Followers in the Fighting Revengful Nature as this man's limiting his words for Swearing as the Jews did renders Christ as leaving his Followers but still in the same common Humane Infirmity as his words are and weak Distrusting and unsteady Condition as the Jews under the Works of the Law were in who were allowed to Swear by the Lord as a Prevention from running after other Gods and to remove Jealousie or Hard Thoughts out of the Minds one of another as about the Case mentioned Exod. 22. 10 11. Upon the words Neither by any other Oath J. S. adds Swear not at all by Heaven Earth or any other of those Forms of Swearing by the Creature that Christ forbad the use of p. 17. whereas the words of the Apostle who well knew the Mind of Christ extend farther as not only a forbidding a Swearing by Heaven or Earth but also by ANY OTHER OATH But mark how presently after this Oath-Vindicator hath opposed Swearing by Heaven Earth or the Creature he contradicts himself in the same page where he saith He that swears by Heaven swears by him whose Throne it is He that swears by Earth swears by him whose Foot-Stool it is because though God's Name be not expresly mentioned in such Forms of Oaths yet it is implyed and therefore we are not to use such Forms in our common Speech any more then the Name of God himself but in Reverence and in extreme Necessity p. 17. So that by this he allows of such a Form as Swearing by Heaven or Earth that thereby they may Swear by God that dwells therein when before they are not at all to Swear by Heaven Earth or any other of thâ—se Forms See what an eminent Antagonist this is that undertakes to confute the Quakers and yet contradicts himself in one and the same page As much as to say We may not
her Testimony against Swearing from its general Tendence To our Example of the Waldenses professing it to be no way Lawful for a Christian to Swear whose Defence Bishop Vsher undertakes in his Book De Successione Eccl. c. 5. and of the Christian-Protestants in the Valley of Piâ—dmount who were cruelly Tortured to Death by the Papists about Anno 1655. One Article alledged against them was That they believed it not lawful to Swear any thing be it True or False To these J. S. answers thus viz. I joyn these because these of Piâ—dmount are the Relicks of the old Waldenses against whom this was wont to be charged by the Papists that they were wholy against all Swearing in which point the Arch-Bishop of Armaugh undertakes to vindicate them but how not by maintaining the Opinion but by proving it to be a Calumny cast upon them by their Adversaries How true this Account is whether or no the Bishop of Armaugh did prove it a Calumny cast upon the Waldenses that they profest it to be no way Lawful for a Christian to Swear will appear by and by In Answer to J. S's Allegation where he addeth That Frier Niâ— Eymericus reckons this to be the third Heresie of the Waldenses That to Swear whether it be before a Judge or extrajudicially in any Case is Vnlawful and a mortal Sin And their fourth Heresie That to Swear Falsly about confessing Truth or revealing their Complices is not Vnlawful or a Sin but Lawful and Sacred This saith he Bishop Vsher in the place forequoted p. 162. on purpose to evince the slanderous Pens of Roman Scribes from the Incoherence of their Calumnies and from the extream Vnlikelihood that they who hâ—ld it Lawful in some Cases to Forswear should hold it Vnlawful in any Case to Swear Observe here Reader he vindicates the Waldenses as not being of the Opinion that it was no way Lawful for a Christian to Swear from the Papists Accusation that they held it lawful to Forswear So that this man still most dishonestly leaves that honourable People the Waldenses under that Blemish of Forswearing whereas if he had dealt hâ—nestly by them and Bishop Vsher he should otherwise have cleared them from holding it lawful to forswear for that they hold it unlawful in any Case to Swear as may be plainly seen by Bishop Vshers own Account De Success c. 6. pag. 161 162. where he saith The old German Author who wrote of the Doctrine and Behaviours of the Waldenses saith That the Occasion of this Error viz. Refusing to Swear was the frequent Use of Swearing for light Causes and because Men fall into Perjuries and addeth a quaint similitude saying That the Hereticks who never swear are like the Devil whom we never read to have Sworn But saith Vsher They who have learned of Christ let your Speech be Yea Yea Nay Nay for whatsoever is more is of that Evil One Mat. 5. 37. will judge the Papists with whom the frequent Custom of Swearing for light Causes is grown in use much liker this Evil Devil then the Waldenses who as is evident from the Relation of the Popish Inquisitor used only to say Yea Yea Nay Nay avoiding a Lye and an Oath And in the following page he sayes But that these viz. the Waldenses are as far from Lyes and Perjuries as those false Friers are from Truth and Modesty I bring those two Inquisitors cited in the said Article for Witnesses The one whereof writes thus of the Leonists or Waldenses They are aware of Detraction and of Scurrilousness and of a Lye and of an Oath The other thus In Words they are Cautious Lyes Oaths and all things that are Naturally Dishonest they avoid To which may be added also a third namely that German which published a Writing of the Doctrine and Behaviours of the Waldenses They teach to avoid a Lye Detraction and an Oath And so Vsher argues thus Because their Adversaries confess they avoid Oaths therefore to charge them with Forswearing is an Absurdity without Truth or Modesty So that denying to swear is thus far commended as that it clears them from the possibility of Forswearing and Customary-Swearing wherein he sayes the Papist their Adversaries are more like the Devil And so is ours in Lying for he perverts it thus in Vsher's Name From their Forswearing he argues their Swearing whereas Vsher defends them from Forswearing by their not Swearing at all Now whereas J. S. hath so plainly perverted Bishop Vsher and abused the poor Waldenses and greatly vilified and upbraided us saying Where are your Eyes Where is your Conscience who belye so many c We may ask this J. S. Where are thy Eyes Where is thy Conscience who hast not only most grosly belyed and abused us but shamefully mis-represented the Waldenses and perverted Bishop Vsher And where must be our Wit or any Bodies else if we believe J. S. upon his bare word perverting such an eminent Author so plain and obvious which we desire the ingenuous Reader seriously to look into and compare with both our Account and his We appeal to the â—ruth in all Whereas for Example 12. J. S. only sets down Erasmus Plato Maeander Antonius Hesiod Theognis and then answers or rather quibâ—es This ranking Erasmus with Heathen smells rank of the Jesuits spirit Whereas he himself hath thus ranked Erasmus with the Heathen rather then we For we have given a particular Account of Erasmus's Testimony only added the other afterwards not at all either to undervalue Erasmus or to point him hanging between Heaven and Hell as he saith it is the Jesuits Device But to let that pass However J. S. seems to have no mean Esteem for Erasmus but whether he be real therein or not will further appear where he confidently saith of him His Judgment was far enough from the Opinion of the Quakers for where he speaks thus of the Vnlawfulness of Swearing the Vselesness of Oaths he speaks of Swearing in our ordinary Communication as is manifest from that Clause in your Bargains ye need no Oath ye need no Execration Observe here Reader he restrains Erasmus here to oppose Swearing only in ordinary Communication and the like and as before far enough from our Opinion and then addeth another Untruth That the Quaker-Apologist either ignorantly or maliciously omits that Clause in your Bargains both which are false for it was neither ignorantly nor maliciously but because we had enough beside in general Assertions and Reasons we cited against all manner of Oaths besides this Particular he mentions See further Erasmus in his Paraphrase on Mat. 5. 34. Having cited the â—ext he saith Among the Jews only Perjury is punishable but the Law of the Gospel that ye should be more sure from Perjury doth utterly condemn all manner of Oaths that is not lawful to Swear neither by God nor by those things which seem to the common sort to be of less Religion Here both the Assertions and the Reasons are general
Judge we pray what Retractation is this And should not our Opposer have shewed us where he retracted that Opinion aforesaid against Oaths if he could or where ever he acknowledg'd himself convinc'd that this was an Error His Submission was principally to the Evangely or Gospel of Jesus Christ which J. S. leaves out as he doth holy before Church we hope he will not charge W. Brute that he design'd a Submission contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ being that principal thing without which the other could not determine But we do not find that W. Brute retracted any more in the words above then he did sometime before when he told the Bishop thus If any man will shew me that I Err in my Writing or Sayings by the Authority of sacred Scripture or by Authority of Reason grounded thereon I will humbly and glady receive his Determination But as for the bare words of any Teacher Christ only excepted I will not simply believe except he be able to establish them by the Truth of Experience or of the Scripture Now consider Reader that this was but a Submission conditionally proposed any more then the other and that some time after this he positively wrote against Oaths for which we refer thee to the Quotations And this conditional Submission seems rather to argue his Belief that they could not convince him of Error herein no more then the Bishop of Hereford did when he could not confute Walter Brute's Exhibits on his own Defence And has it not been a common thing with many established in the Truth to propose such conditional Submissions to be convinced and receive Information by or according to the Holy Scriptures For our parts we do not find this man's Representation of Waltâ—r Brute to have so much as a face of Truth in it or that he was either doubtful of or did recant of that Opinion charged against him by the publick Notary viz. That he held that it is not lawful for Christians for any Cause in any Case to swear by the Creator neither by the Creature But rather that he was positive in this amongst his last Testimonies against the Pope and Church of Rome see Act. Mon. vol. â— fol. 653. As for J. S. his Conclusion pag. 43. it savours both of Scorn and Envy and a Persecuting Spirit that would instigate the King and Parliament to afflict us as if we were not Conscientious in what we profess but we knowing the contrary in our Consciences as being therein oblieged to Christ and his Command we sleight our Enemies Flouts and Revilings To his saying The Order of Middleburgh is no ways applicable to the Quakers Case who have refus'd to pay Church duties The man seems herein wilfully to shut his Eyes for the said Order is very plain for Liberty of Conscience and Freedom from the Imposition of Oaths unto those Inhabitants who refus'd the taking the accustomâ—d Oaths and who instead thereof proffered as the Quakers do That their Yea should stand instead of an Oath and the Transgressors thereof be punished as perjured Persons which with the Advice of the Governour and Council of Zealand was accordingly ordained and confirmed That this Peoples Yea aforesaid should stand instead of an Oath before the Magistrates of the said City A Noble President to our Purpose Obj. But the Quakers have refused to pay Church-Duties and thereby Rob the Royal Exchequer which is partly supplyed out of Tenths and First Fruits To the first of refusing to pay Church-Duties it seems he means Tythes to the Priests And must we therefore not be allowed the Liberty of our Consciences but be exposed to Ruin Loss of Estates and Livelihoods because we cannot pay Tenths to the Priests Oh hard Man and unjust Judge that respects more the Pope's Yoak and Antichristian Imposition then the Lives or Liberties of Protestant Subjects and True Christians And his implying an Indulgence for us if we did not refuse to pay the Priests Tythe is like as to tell us We may have the Liberty of our Consciences if we will be Conformable Oh generous Indulgence to such as need it not Could our Consciences serve us to Conform Pay Tythes Uphold Priests c. what needed we make Address for Liberty His charge of Robbing the Royal Exchequer is envious and false shewing a Persecuting Spirit The Priests â—yth-Barns are not the Royal Exchequer we cannot help to fill them They demand Tyths of us not only of our Lands but of the Fruits and Encrease of our Labours and Industry a manifest Extortion and their Demand of them is as Ministers of Christ and on a Religious Account as claiming a Divine Right in neither of which are we satiâ—fied nor can we own either and we have reason to think that the King is more Merciful to them about the First Fruits then they are to us and doth not so severely prosecute or strictly look after them as they do to us having caused many deeply to suffer both in Persons and Estates and made grievous Havock by taking away and spoiling mens Goods driving away their Cows Oxen c. many times more then the value of the Tvthe besides the sweeping away House-hold Goods and exposing many poor industrious Families to Ruin as also the many long tedious Imprisonments which they have caused many to suffer in till Death But when have we refused to pay our Civil-Duties or Taxes being in a Capacity that is out of Bonds and Sufferings which have disabled many And if the King and Great Council of the Nation were pleased to repeal those old Laws inforcing the Payment of Tythes and to convert them into some necessary civil Use as for the Poor or some National Service and Benefit it would appear whether we should not pay our parts and whether the Royal Exchequer would not be conveniently supplyed without the Tenths from the Priests As for our Desire of being exempted from taking an Oath because our Consciences will not allow us to swear to this our Adversary adds viz. When you actually do Swear in as solemn august a Form as its possible for the Tongue of man to express even then when you say You dare not Swear God who is the Searcher of Hearts knows that it is with a Holy Respect to the Reputation of Christianity the Evangelical Dispensation and to Christ's express Prohibition c. This Person has given us various Definitions of an Oath of which he reckons that to say God who is the Searcher of Hearts knows is a most solemn august Form of Swearing But surely he egregiously misseth in this for at this rate of defining a solemn form of an Oath we shall scarce know how to mention the Name of God in any serious or solemn Way either in Prayer Thanksgiving Appeal to him either as witness for us or singly as desiring that the Truth may be discovered in any case but this must all be lookt upon as a most solemn and august Form